The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Come on Bell. Justify the war that was started by a man who has no clue why he went to war (by his own admission).
Page:
Hang on.
Bush announces inquiry. Into intelligence he used...
We must uncover all the lies etc.
Nice distancing there......
Bush announces inquiry. Into intelligence he used...
We must uncover all the lies etc.
Nice distancing there......
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> You just hear things in the forces.
>
> A guy might have worked with another guy in the past, who knows a guy
> etc.
> Some of it is just rumours, some of it is true.
Yeah? Okay, fair enough. Cheers for addressing the question and having the honesty to say that the extra info you hear isn't carved in tablets of stone.
> You just hear things in the forces.
>
> A guy might have worked with another guy in the past, who knows a guy
> etc.
> Some of it is just rumours, some of it is true.
Yeah? Okay, fair enough. Cheers for addressing the question and having the honesty to say that the extra info you hear isn't carved in tablets of stone.
I signed the secrets act once.
I can't tell you :-P
DId you sign the Official Secrets Act then?
You just hear things in the forces.
A guy might have worked with another guy in the past, who knows a guy etc.
Some of it is just rumours, some of it is true.
A guy might have worked with another guy in the past, who knows a guy etc.
Some of it is just rumours, some of it is true.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
>
> I never felt lied to by the government. Perhaps the general populace
> do, but then I hear things that they don't.
Such as?
>
> I never felt lied to by the government. Perhaps the general populace
> do, but then I hear things that they don't.
Such as?
Belldandy wrote:
> Erm, we removed a regime that has killed, based on the number of
> bodies found so far, upwards of 1/2 million of it's own people in 12
> years and overseen the torture, false imprisonment and rape of
> million more.
Yup. Care to answer just how Saddam got the weapons and stability of rule to do that? Perhaps you could also address just why, if regime change was the reason, Paul Wolfowitz (who was directly involved with planning the war) has gone on record as saying "regime change alone was not sufficient reason to start this war")
> The same regime which killed scores of Kuwaiti's in
> 1990 and took 500 back to Iraq in 1991 who were never found, who
> massacred the Kurdish population with WMD
....with gas that was bought from us....
, invaded neighbours twice,
So America mustn't have invaded Grenada, right?
> caused an environmental disaster in the Gulf which was one of the
> worst of the century,
As opposed to that nice Mr Bush who tried to force through a bill for drililng in Alaska, one of the outstanding area's of natural beauty in the world...
> which pursued WMD and sought to hide that
> pursuance,
Really? Cos y'know, North Korea do that and they seem to have gotten off scott free....
> which claimed sanctions were strangling the country whilst
> the regime itself lived it up in palaces and banked billions of
> dollars,
...the majority of which came from US purchases of oil, purchases which only stopped in February 2003.
> which was developing new missiles in contravention of UN
> resolutions,
Hmm...and yet Israel is still in direct contravention of UN resolutions and they're left alone. In fact, Bell didn't you previously have nothing but contempt for the UN and try to deny that they should even be consulted?
> which tortured allied POW's in 1991...
Heh. As opposed to the deaths by beating in Guantanamo Bay of POW's? Sorry...'illegal combatants'?
> do I have to
> continue? But hey, Iraq was no threat to you in the UK so why the
> hell should we care eh?
Heheheheh. Know what Bell? I agree with a lot of the reasons you've came out with. Were it not for your faked moral outrage at the end there, this would have been a half decent post from you. However, I'm intrigued to see if you can answer any of the questions I've raised in this post, or whether you'll simply avoid them.
>
> Sure, not the only regime like this in existence, but taking one down
> is a start and I'm pretty sure that the future will see others fall
> one way or the other.
Which ones? The one in Uzbekistan that is supported by the US and UK? Perhaps the Indonesian one that enjoys massive income from trade with the west? I suppose it could be China, with it's "Most Favoured Trading Nation" status with the US. It could even be Burma, a nation that arrests anyone who shows an interest in democracy.
> Erm, we removed a regime that has killed, based on the number of
> bodies found so far, upwards of 1/2 million of it's own people in 12
> years and overseen the torture, false imprisonment and rape of
> million more.
Yup. Care to answer just how Saddam got the weapons and stability of rule to do that? Perhaps you could also address just why, if regime change was the reason, Paul Wolfowitz (who was directly involved with planning the war) has gone on record as saying "regime change alone was not sufficient reason to start this war")
> The same regime which killed scores of Kuwaiti's in
> 1990 and took 500 back to Iraq in 1991 who were never found, who
> massacred the Kurdish population with WMD
....with gas that was bought from us....
, invaded neighbours twice,
So America mustn't have invaded Grenada, right?
> caused an environmental disaster in the Gulf which was one of the
> worst of the century,
As opposed to that nice Mr Bush who tried to force through a bill for drililng in Alaska, one of the outstanding area's of natural beauty in the world...
> which pursued WMD and sought to hide that
> pursuance,
Really? Cos y'know, North Korea do that and they seem to have gotten off scott free....
> which claimed sanctions were strangling the country whilst
> the regime itself lived it up in palaces and banked billions of
> dollars,
...the majority of which came from US purchases of oil, purchases which only stopped in February 2003.
> which was developing new missiles in contravention of UN
> resolutions,
Hmm...and yet Israel is still in direct contravention of UN resolutions and they're left alone. In fact, Bell didn't you previously have nothing but contempt for the UN and try to deny that they should even be consulted?
> which tortured allied POW's in 1991...
Heh. As opposed to the deaths by beating in Guantanamo Bay of POW's? Sorry...'illegal combatants'?
> do I have to
> continue? But hey, Iraq was no threat to you in the UK so why the
> hell should we care eh?
Heheheheh. Know what Bell? I agree with a lot of the reasons you've came out with. Were it not for your faked moral outrage at the end there, this would have been a half decent post from you. However, I'm intrigued to see if you can answer any of the questions I've raised in this post, or whether you'll simply avoid them.
>
> Sure, not the only regime like this in existence, but taking one down
> is a start and I'm pretty sure that the future will see others fall
> one way or the other.
Which ones? The one in Uzbekistan that is supported by the US and UK? Perhaps the Indonesian one that enjoys massive income from trade with the west? I suppose it could be China, with it's "Most Favoured Trading Nation" status with the US. It could even be Burma, a nation that arrests anyone who shows an interest in democracy.
Yeah, it still seems strange to me that security personnel in Ireland still travel in armoured and enclosed vehicles yet most of our people in Iraq don't.
Belldandy wrote:
> Skarra - From what I have seen the British forces seem to use open
> topped land rover vehicles, not the Defender in any kind of enclosed
> variant. Several times our people have had to make trips between
> bases in standard civilian vehicles and have, not surprisingly, been
> shot to bits or barely made it.
I know. I was only stating that they were designed for a different purpose, Peacekeeping.
> Skarra - From what I have seen the British forces seem to use open
> topped land rover vehicles, not the Defender in any kind of enclosed
> variant. Several times our people have had to make trips between
> bases in standard civilian vehicles and have, not surprisingly, been
> shot to bits or barely made it.
I know. I was only stating that they were designed for a different purpose, Peacekeeping.
Page: